svirrsvarr 3 days ago Not meteorites, way to slow to be that, and they﻿ are traveling straight horizontally.

Yet just like Slate they take as a Space satellite decay space debris that moves slow? thats a first time i heard of as such which makes it
unlikely.

The drawings are from 7 to 13 i believe.

Again, how did you determine the speed and distance?

The objects in the OP videos appear to be moving just as "slow" as the one in your last post, which you say is a Russian satellite breaking up on
re-entry. Here's another example of a "slow" satellite re-entry.

So tell me again how the South American objects are moving too "slow" to be a satellite breaking up on re-entry.

edit on 17-5-2013 by
draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

Again , how did you determine the speed and distance that it was the Orbital's falling satellite by looking at the videos? few other users nor Jim
still haven't explained the flickering lights.

Here's another example of a "slow" satellite re-entry.

Yeah thats how supposed an satellite re-entry should look with a comet like trail but lets all ignore the facts.

edit on 17-5-2013 by
Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

Are you playing games? Why won't you answer the question posed? I have not determined the speed... that's my point. I HAVE determined that they all
appear equally "slow" - an entirely subjective analysis, as was yours... unless you can/will explain how you arrived at your conclusion. At
this point it seems that you will just continue to dodge the questions you can't answer.

svirrsvarr 3 days ago Not meteorites, way to slow to be that, and they﻿ are traveling straight horizontally.

Yet just like Slate they take as a Space satellite decay space debris that moves slow? thats a first time i heard of as such which makes it
unlikely.

The drawings are from 7 to 13 i believe.

Again, how did you determine the speed and distance?

The objects in the OP videos appear to be moving just as "slow" as the one in your last post, which you say is a Russian satellite breaking up on
re-entry. Here's another example of a "slow" satellite re-entry.

So tell me again how the South American objects are moving too "slow" to be a satellite breaking up on re-entry.

edit on 17-5-2013 by draknoir2
because: (no reason given)

Again , how did you determine the speed and distance that it was the Orbital's falling satellite by looking at the videos? few other users nor Jim
still haven't explained the flickering lights.

Here's another example of a "slow" satellite re-entry.

Yeah thats how supposed an satellite re-entry should look with a comet like trail but lets all ignore the facts.

edit on 17-5-2013 by
Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

Are you playing games? Why won't you answer the question posed? I have not determined the speed... that's my point. I HAVE determined that they all
appear equally "slow" - an entirely subjective analysis, as was yours... unless you can/will explain how you arrived at your conclusion. At
this point it seems that you will just continue to dodge the questions you can't answer.

It seems not only i am being attacked by Jim but by you as well which is not surprising.

At this point it seems that you will just continue to dodge the questions you can't answer.

Ironic and now your accusing me of dodging the questions, maybe i should start believing the mainstream news outlets more often then?

But it seems you didn't even seem to understand my post let me then reframe it back.
Usually thats how supposed an satellite re-entry should look with a comet like trail but usually not all satellite re-entrys are slow.

The problem with this one in South America there was nothing to suggest at first to begin to say that it was an satellite which i still dont see it
as an satellite.

Ironic and now your accusing me of dodging the questions, maybe i should start believing the mainstream news outlets more often then?

Or you could just answer the damned question.

HOW EXACTLY DID YOU DETERMINE THE SPEED AND DISTANCE OF THE SOUTH AMERICA OBJECTS?

If your going to use caps i am not going even on bothering on replying back. The majority of people dont use caps while replying.

By the way how do you explain the flickering lights in the objects in several of those videos?

And also did you even the thread from the start?

Orbital says that both the mass simulator and the upper stage are expected to stay in orbit for several months before their orbits degrade, causing
them to re-enter and burn up in the atmosphere.

"Orbital says that both the mass simulator and the upper stage are expected to stay in orbit for several months "
Several months usually means until fall or winter, even not late august so again how do we know it was the Orbital satellite if the satellite company
stated it would stay in orbit for several months?

Originally posted by JimOberg
"For a space debris which had being witnessed in two countries and several thousand+ eye witness accounts including some drawings of how the eye
witness had seen the object."

But yeah like i said lets all ignore the stated facts, and go with the MSM. As in Syria to.

(But people the Rebels are the Good Guys Trust us)

This is the problem. You want to see it as a UFO or some extraterrestrial mothership. So any earthly or mundane explanation (in this case, space
debris) that contradicts your preconceived notion will naturally be viewed as nonsense in your mind.

You say there are no trails in any of those videos? Have you really looked?
Unexplained flickering? I'm sure it could be adequately explained if you researched it.

You say there are no trails in any of those videos? Have you really looked? Unexplained flickering? I'm sure it could be adequately explained if you
researched it. Unfortunately this isn't the holy grail we all have been hoping for.

You say there are no trails in any of those videos? Have you really looked? Unexplained flickering?

You must be joking me right? how many times do i have to repeat it? its almost as if you two are just mocking

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.